[...] who – after noticing all the Obama T-shirts – decided to wear a shirt that said, “McCain Girl.”  And was utterly and hatefully attacked for doing so.  Just never forget that Republicans [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Who would want to where a shirt that represented the socialist illuminati? They may only get to wear it momentarily before someone takes it off, and let’s another person where it, because they have to share according to the liberals.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] this debate. It’s to re-educate the public on what is and what isn’t traditional rites: A marriage between a man and a woman follows natural laws of conception and procreation. It is the way our world evolves and grows. Were [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] They should be equivalent in benefits, but in no way considered equal as a traditional family. Marriage is, and will always remain, a union between a man and a woman. It is only by the two, combined, that a child is borne of [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Rocky_B: I won’t get too much into the abortion topic, as it is another issue altogether, only to say that as someone who holds “pro-choice” position politically (which does not reflect on the personal advice I’d give if a woman saw fit to ask me for it), I agree that the choice should also be extended to physicians.

I think your solution to the Civil Union question is sound. Why shouldn’t individuals sharing a long term financial responsibility also reap the benefits? Of course, it would need to separate heath proxy, next of kin, and other “spousal” rights. I will say again – incest is almost always indicative of abuse or control, while bestiality and pedophilia are, by definition, absolutely always indicative of abuse. None of these should be considered as viable paths.

And finally, I do agree that there are a certain faction of gays who use their sexuality as a weapon toward those they feel have oppressed them. However, I do not feel that they reflect the majority who are simply looking for what everyone else has.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Wordsmith:

From Mirriam-Webster:

Main Entry:
mar·riage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross

those are only three- there is also the use of the word “marry” to co-join parts together as a whole, non specific of gender.
to be “married” to an idea..

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Well Mata, you’re getting rather riled up, aren’t you? If you actually read my wording, I’m careful not to assume anything for sure, but suggested there might be a double standard in your view, but that I hoped not – having already stated that I don’t think your position doesn’t go as far as bigotry.

I am not arguing a “non-gender” status, I am arguing against discrimination because of gender.

Let me clarify that I never accused anyone here of being intolerant. I take everyone at their word here, while I’m sure we all acknowledge and denounce that bigotry is a factor with this issue. Now, what I’m reading is that, in spite of their own tolerance, there are those who struggle with how to teach it to their kids. I do not trivialize that struggle at all, I know it must be quite difficult. I simply offered up an example as to how someone close to me, who has kids, dealt with the issue effectively. OF COURSE it is up for individual parents to decide as to how they impart anything to their kids. This doesn’t mean the law should tiptoe around people’s human rights. As voter very astutely pointed out, our culture has continuously been “re-educated” on many issues – usually for the better.

So you are correct, I completely disagree with you on a “separate but equal” clause. History has shown that it hasn’t worked in other cases, for reasons I have already cited.

As for the “real agenda” – well, look how angry you got when I suggested what yours might be. So yeah, I don’t know you, but what I’m reading is a double standard. I’m sure that’s not reflective of you as a person, just this particular view.

But if you really look at what we’re both saying, there’s a lot more that we do agree on than what we don’t. So although, at least for now, neither of us is willing to bend on what we don’t agree on, I’m still rather encouraged. So again, I thank you and am glad we’re finally done with this debate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Cary;
No, I know what you mean. ‘Radical’ is subjective, sort of in the eye of the beholder. For the last couple of decades, the only real taste of ‘radical protests’ LV has known was with the Culinary Union (As I’m sure your cousin can confirm). Even with the “Sin City” moniker, long-term Nevada resident sentiments run more towards a ‘laid-back’ Conservatism than that found in California. So it’s not surprising for that to be reflected in general public opinion. I should note, for the last twenty years there has been quite a lot of influx of people relocating there from the Oakland/LA areas including, unfortunately, a large contingent of gangstas’. The former ‘standards’ are being diluted/transformed which has resulted in it’s recent shift towards becoming a ‘Blue State’. It’s a much different environment there than it was in the early 1980′s when I first arrived. The city has doubled or tripled in size.

Actually I wasn’t intentionally ignoring the Hippocratic Oath, yet after reviewing and rendering due consideration, I find that abortion, which was one of the concerns of other posters, is counter to the Hippocratic Oath, I refer you to line five of either translation (Source Follows). And as mentioned in the preface, not all physicians are required to adhere to it’s tenets (Precedes line five translations) and they may refer patients to other ‘specialists’ for procedures not covered by the oath or that they are uncomfortable with performing (See; Modern Relevance section). Therefore a parochial doctor is protected by the oath in electing not to perform procedures counter to his/her beliefs and moralities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although it is not obligatory and no longer taken up by all physicians.
——————————————————————————————–
Line five translation from original Greek to English;
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
——-T————————————————————————————-
Line five Nova translation;
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

It appears that we are in agreement that the only reasonable solution to the marriage/civil union quandary is to make marriage ‘a church only function’, taking it out of the government’s hands as falling under separations of church and state, and civil unions the government version of such bonds. While offering both the same protections, benefits, and age of consent prohibitions to both under the laws of the state.

I haven’t been able to do much in the Las Vegas local community theater for the last few years as family crises following my retirement required my presence cross-country. Yet if your cousin has been active there for some time, I’m sure it’s highly likely we may have been run in similar circles or have mutual acquaintances. It seems everybody there either knows somebody, or knows somebody that knows them, I’m sure you know what I mean. My twin is still out there ‘holding down the fort’ (taking care of my other house) and involved with many of the same organizations. He has lowered his involvement recently to take classes and now does most of his work with LVLT.

As Mata points out; what next need be resolved, would be for the state to further define the one or more levels/stages of civil unions. I think it would behoove the state to have separate versions of civil unions for protected sexual relations (such as same sex marriages) and protective family/fraternal/parental mutually supportive bonds (non-sexual relationships). These would be designed to protect rights such as access to the individuals, property, and in making decisions in the event the other party is incapacitated, a form of advanced term P.O.A.. Yet in the later case would disallow, read as ‘not sanction’, incestuous or pedophilia to protect common moralities.

I don’t see that a third form of civil union between humans and other species should exist. No matter how smart an animal is, it remains an animal, and unable to understand nor commit to a human relationship beyond that of a faithful companion. The state should not be seen as possibly condoning bestiality.

Mata;
I think I already mentioned that IMO the only reason for California LGBT’ers to insist on marriage as opposed to the acceptance of civil unions is to anger and frustrate those who view marriage as a religious institution. IMO that is the sole driving force. To use the government to transform what others view as sacred. There is no doubt in my mind that some of these amongst those same individuals who demand the ten commandments be removed from courthouses, “under God” be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, refuse to cite the pledge, refuse to pay proper respect to the flag, etceteras. Those who “Real Americans” see the “Anti-American” faction.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

From Cary:

Perhaps what you’re really saying that that what should be “good enough for them” isn’t good enough for you. I hope you’re not, because that would belie your stance on equality, which is what I propose the LGBT community are more than willing to accept. I’ll close by referring you to comment #23.

First of all, do not presume what I am “really” saying. Frankly, you’re new here, and you don’t know me well enough to slam some bigot tag via assumptions on me. So let me make this really simple for you.

You don’t support “separate but equal and/or equivalent”. I do. Because the relationships *are* separate but equal and/or equivalent. Men and women are, in legal theory, separate but equal/equivalent. Shall we just get rid of man/woman and call everyone a non-gender name?

This is what you are arguing for, so to speak… a “non gender” status. Since the LGBT community will settle for no less than “*not* separate and equal”, your answer, like theirs, is to strip the other side of identity in order to grant them what they want.

And that is what I have *repeatedly* been telling you is the real agenda. A re’education of culture to make marriage – a religious rite of tradition – “non-gender”… muddying the waters between parental authority, church influence, and school interference in the home.

It’s as simple as this. I oppose that re’education. You don’t. Done. Period. History. As far as I’m concerned, end of this discussion with you. So you can rest easy on “repetitive” stuff coming your way now… apparently the gist of the argument, and your flawed “cure” still doesn’t sink in.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oh, and sorry about 53 and 54 – I went back and edited the first, and thought it didn’t go through, so I typed it in as a separate comment – they both ended up in spam, I guess. Haha!

Like or Dislike: 0  0